In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.

Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while

I have noticed that my subs are more likely to get a shot if they end up in the same hex as the target at the end of each night/day movment phase. Most xAK TFs move three or four hexes per phase, but if they use some op points to finish loading before leaving harbour they will move that much less during the phase. Accordingly, I would start a zone about three hexes from the port and patrol out to seven hexes from the port - his TFs will have end up somewhere in that range during their second movement. Bradfordkay probably has other ideas too.

Some other experienced players like the "patrol around target" choice for patrol setting. It really makes the sub hard to track because the movements are so unpredictable, but you need several subs doing overlapping "patrol around" tracks to get good coverage. Also, if you pick a target point too close to shore, it can muck up the patrol tracks a bit.

Most important is to have very good naval/aggression stats for the skippers. If done carefully it doesn't cost all that many PP to change them.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.

Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while

It depends upon the location. I can't give away too much information (operational security), but some of my sub patrol routes run from Truk all the way to the Admiralties, for example. Then I will send out another sub on patrol on a very similar route which overlaps that one but separated by a few days. This seriously lowers their DL and yet because they are running along a projected enemy shipping lane they have a pretty good chance of finding a TF as they patrol. I'm certain that there are other methods that work, but this has performed pretty well for me...

In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.

Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while

It depends upon the location. I can't give away too much information (operational security), but some of my sub patrol routes run from Truk all the way to the Admiralties, for example. Then I will send out another sub on patrol on a very similar route which overlaps that one but separated by a few days. This seriously lowers their DL and yet because they are running along a projected enemy shipping lane they have a pretty good chance of finding a TF as they patrol. I'm certain that there are other methods that work, but this has performed pretty well for me...

Good idea...i was doing something similar but with tiny patrol routes...if I get a turn back i may make a few changes

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do?

Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do?

Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...

Yeah that was a shocker and what drove me to start an AAR because I had never witnessed that kind of onslaught before. And as a long time Japanese player I couldn't figure out how it was even possible.

Really not sure how to go forward now. I do think I will either lessen this AAR posts or end it altogether. And at min I will slow down the pace of the game (Im still wavering on walking away). I play four or five at once at all times (I love to lose what can I say ) and made this one my primary one because I love the pace he plays at (we did a month over the weekend) but I really really have a problem with gamey play and using game mechanics in the manner he has. It's not wrong because we didn't have many house rules and its different play styles but I am not sure how much time I want to invest in a game that frankly requires quite the commitment that this one does. I may well go looking for another long term player who can crank out the terms because I really REALLY would like to reach 43 in a game..... This all makes me a bit depressed though because I had high high hopes of finally reaching 43 with the bulk of my forces in tact. But I dont even know how to game the system and the only hope I have to actually compete with him is if I do.

Hello Rroberson, I played with CV2 a game before you, scen 1 as a japanese, and your problems with a game look very familiar :-) He is a skillful player but very different kind as I am, but its another story. Fragmentation of units and micro invasions - you can pick one battalion or regiment and load into amphib TF with ships with same size (4x5000 AK,s) as i did, to got some companies :-) in antimicroinvasion duty hehe:-) you can also buy cheap units as he can. If you change unrestricted HQ to restricted command (I Amphib Corps from CentralPac to WestCost) you can buy westcoast units a lot cheap. We did this both in our game and this explain a huge amount of his troops in unrestricted areas. First of all you dont need to tread yourself as a failure because defeat in China, honestly his position in China was very similar as yours now. Main problem in china is a supply, chinese combat units can fight better outside cities in hard terrain, they got better supply there. His invasion of Alaska looks like defasive action. He want to secure northern flank, its highway to Japan right? :-) good direction of first offensive Good luck mate and do not have any complexes, as a allies he also lost 3 carriers in one battle against me, so its not shame Ps. I am watching you :-)

I took some time off from the game as I had a trip to Seattle and thought a bit about all that was going on with it and decided to resign from the game.

I don't mind losing...god knows I have surrendered to you guys a million times over and keep coming back for more abuse.

But I just don't want to fight someone who from appearances uses the "programming" to gain a distinct advantage over his opponents. AND is unwilling to reach any type of compromise when that is questioned.

I'm sorry to actually lose this game because it rolls along at a pace that I really enjoyed but I just don't want to fight the programming when playing a war game.

I have 3 other games that are moving along nicely. I will create and AAR of one of those and let you guys laugh at my ineptness against those guys.

Anyway I just wanted to update you guys...and you will see another AAR soon no doubt.

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do?

Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...

No, I never sent any troops to China from anywhere. In fact I pulled 3 shot up divisions OUT of China... I did send in 3 bomber groups however.

He did in fact violate this rule though, twice. The 3rd Provisional moved into Manchuria (it is a perma restricted unit), and the 31st corps moved into Vietnam (also perma restricted). I didnt say anything because frankly, I didnt care. He was giving me points by sending these units to their deaths. Who am I to complain?

What commands are you releasing your units to? Dollars to doughnuts you are not buying them out at full price either. US units to IX corps, Aussies to 1st Aus corps, and Indian units likely to air HQs (personally, I transfer the Burma HQ to India so my units are at least in a ground HQ) I'll bet. Your air units, same thing I will bet. Yes, I transfer command of 25th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. So, you can release ALL your units at a reduced cost, yet complain that I do. Interesting...

But of all the units I have released from those areas, the only ones you have encountered are: 1st div in Alaska. First use: Jul 42. 8th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42. 9th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42. 14th div on Luzon and Port Moresby. First use: Luzon in Feb 42 20th div at Adak. First use: Aug 42. 24th div at Geraldton. First use: Oct 42. 26th, 32nd, 41st out of China, badly shot up so it didnt cost much went to Japan, rebuilt and used at Perth.

Hardly an abusive number of troops. Certainly well within the totals I could have released by now. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 33rd, 38th, 48th, 55th, 56th, Imp Gd, 4th Gd, 5th Gd, 6th Gd, Gd Armor, and a half dozen garrison units which are baby divisions (not counting many bdes and regts) are all units that I get that I dont have to pay to release.

Frankly not surprised by this though. Knew this game wouldnt last when you "surrendered" after your carrier losses.

My favorite part is the attempted dig at the end.

Nice enough guy, but has some real issues to what playing a balanced a sporting game means.

His tone, especially that last line, betrays that he is sensitive and even petulant about getting called on the issue. That means he knows it is not right, even if it is "legal" by the game engine and lack of a HR about it. That said, if you can come to an agreement that makes the game still playable and reasonably balanced, you could play into the period when the Allies get lots of toys and boys. He may not enjoy that though!

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

His tone, especially that last line, betrays that he is sensitive and even petulant about getting called on the issue. That means he knows it is not right, even if it is "legal" by the game engine and lack of a HR about it. That said, if you can come to an agreement that makes the game still playable and reasonably balanced, you could play into the period when the Allies get lots of toys and boys. He may not enjoy that though!

That's the thing that bugs me. I was trying to reach middle ground regarding how he was using his paratroopers. He talked me into seeing it his way and I went with it. When he used the Mavis L...same deal...but then after doing some reading of the forums I realized the HQ thing which had really bothered me from before...(all those suddenly free troops) that to me was too much.

The sad thing is, since I knew he wouldnt neogotiate regarding the paratrooper use...I didnt even bother with the HQ transfer issue. I already knew the answer and if I thought he was willing to compromise I would have been willing to continue on with the game.

ah well.

It did teach me a lesson.

I will always give house rules a solid looking over in the future. I had gotten use to playing against people who were like me and and played the game for fun...not win at any costs.

My son plays a lot of role-playing board games with his buddies. They have a name for people who create super-characters with no vulnerabilities because they can't stand to lose a battle or have their character eliminated. The name is "Munchkin". I guess if there is a name for the behaviour it is not all that uncommon. Their ego may be stoked by winning every battle but they miss out on the fun and unpredictability that comes with more realistic play - and they receive fewer and fewer invites to play. Sounds familiar, doesn't it!

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

I am sorry to hear that your game and AAR are finishing rroberson, as your AAR's are fun and informative to read. I feel also that it is no reflection on your playing capabilities, that you have had to end the game early. As you are a very good wargamer, and you just came up against not a good player, but a good loophole-lawyer.

Nice enough guy, but has some real issues to what playing a balanced a sporting game means.

Wasnt a dig. Was the truth. I knew the next time you were handed a defeat you'd quit. Was a matter of time. Played enough games to see it coming.

quote:

What commands are you releasing your units to?

I noticed you didnt answer THIS question.

So, as I said. Its ok for the allies to buy out units at a 25% rate, but not the Japs? Interesting...

The para stuff was mainly covered in these 2 E mails: I didnt use a fragment. The entire Yokosuka Assault Bde dropped. Or at least as much as I could carry. The entire bde is there now, which Im sure you are about to find out.

And as I said, the Japs DID use squad to platoon sized drop to capture unoccupied bases (as did the Germans), so when they did it HISTORICALLY then yes frankly, I could give a rats ass what the "experts" on the board think. Ask them how many of them spent 11 years in the army, 3 of them TRAINING paratroops, Rangers, and special forces.

The Mavis L isnt a patrol plane. Its a transport. I dont have a mission list to search with it, or recon. It has the missions available to it that transports do. Nothing more, nothing less.

The people on the board claim that landing by sub is "gamey" as well, even though the US did it at Makin, and the Japs were planning to do it at Tinian as well. The people that oppose that are left-overs from WitP where you could lift whole divisions by sea. You cant do that in AE. Only airborne units can be moved by sub.

I guard my rear area bases - at least the ones I care about. I assume you will drop on anything within range of your longest range seaplane (PBY-4). Part of the game, part of war.

And yes, the seaplane torpedo exploit I have played against as well. While I will admit they did do it in the real war, the accuracy of the planes in the game is way out of whack. Like night bombing used to be (thank God Michael fixed that).

And Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that it applies in all cases. Dropping a fragment on San Francisco for example. No way a couple dozen guys are going to "control" anything. But a remote island base with no garrison, or likewise a remote airfield in the middle of Alaska? 4 guys with BB guns could "control" it. So making a hard and fast rule on it isnt appropriate. Kalgoorie is in the middle of a high traffic area, thus I dropped the entire unit not a fragment.

He had "assumed" that I dropped a fragment on Kalgoorie when in fact I dropped an entire para brigade on it. Love how he presents his "facts" and people eat it up like they are actually "facts". As they say, there are 2 sides to every story. I dont think I used my parachute units in an un-historical way. Likewise, I didnt commit units to battle in a manner outside the "spirit of the game.

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look at when I sent released units into battle: 14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in). 8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in). 1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in). 20th in Aug 42 (8 months in). 24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

I released a total of 10 divisions in 10 months. Exactly on the "full price" timeline. Like I said, was just a matter of time before you quit on me. No dig, just a fact.

My son plays a lot of role-playing board games with his buddies. They have a name for people who create super-characters with no vulnerabilities because they can't stand to lose a battle or have their character eliminated. The name is "Munchkin". I guess if there is a name for the behaviour it is not all that uncommon. Their ego may be stoked by winning every battle but they miss out on the fun and unpredictability that comes with more realistic play - and they receive fewer and fewer invites to play. Sounds familiar, doesn't it!

You dont have a clue what you are talking about. Look at my AAR and find anything "gamey" or outside the realm of history in it. Seems to me you were one of the people criticizing me in an opponents wanted post I had where I had a whole list of suggested house rules, werent you? So I guess where ever the band wagon stops, you just hop right on.

Ask Sly about our game. I lost plenty of battles. Lost plenty of carriers. If memory serves I quit that game because he started flying his 4E bombers at 1000 feet. And there is no stopping 4E bombers in this game, so it was pointless to continue. That was November 43. So like I said, if your comment was directed at me, you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look at when I sent released units into battle: 14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in). 8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in). 1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in). 20th in Aug 42 (8 months in). 24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

I released a total of 10 divisions in 10 months. Exactly on the "full price" timeline. Like I said, was just a matter of time before you quit on me. No dig, just a fact.

It did read like a dig, however you intended it. Civil communication is key to having a good gaming experience here, and this is not helping your case.

I think the issue is not the schedule of release of your bought out units, but the price and the fact that this is not standard accepted practice as intended by developers. If the price is cheaper then you have the liberty of using PPs for whatever you want. PPs are meant to illustrate that there were issues that can't be easily simulated in game between various factions, governments and armed forces. If it's easier to move units to other HQs, then it's easier to do what they couldn't do then. I don't agree that everyone does things this way just because it's possible for the same reason I don't think everyone looks into their opponent's AAR because they can. Honor and respect govern the gaming experience here and that's something I really appreciate. If you do this and your opponent does not, and moreso doesn't want you to do it, then you either have to compromise or end the game.

I am one who actually agreed with your paradrop as completely within the rules of the game, not abusing any item or using a unit in a way it wasn't intended. It's pretty unrealistic that this could have happened and actually closed off the rail in that place, but the game doesn't model civilian involvement at all, so in game terms it works. The Mavis-L is as capable for transporting paras as any other transport. Just with great extended range, which is most likely why you used it.

The PP issue is really just something you need to clear up before the game begins. Make sure your opponent knows and is okay with how you want to utilize the PPs, and then it's all okay. At least now it's all in the open.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

CV2 - I think I have only looked at the Opponents Wanted forum about three times and I don't recall ever leaving a post there. I have, from time to time, expressed my opinion of various HR rules, and if the rules seem too one-sided I would likely say so [if the one of the AAR participants asked for comments].

My concern with para fragments is not that they can be used to take numerous unoccupied locations, but that they can double the AV of all attacking troops in the hex on the turn they are dropped. To drop [risk] only a fragment of a para unit in those circumstances would not be in the spirit of the game.

Re: the buying of divisions, I have not read your AAR so if you say you paid full price, I accept that. But it is your opponent you need to convince. If it was me, I would also want assurances that you do not see Manchuria as part of China, even though it is one contiguous land mass. To do so would make movement of Kwantung army units into China very easy. I only bring that up because I have heard of other players bringing out Kwantung Army units without paying the points. I would want to remove any nagging doubt about this to have full confidence in my opponent.

If you are sure your actions are within the spirit of the game, please discuss them without the counterattacks. The idea has been placed that some of your actions may not be "fair" and it should be possible to discuss them without attacking the authors. If there are mis-perceptions at work, they are the problem - not the people offering their opinions.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

I am one who actually agreed with your paradrop as completely within the rules of the game, not abusing any item or using a unit in a way it wasn't intended. It's pretty unrealistic that this could have happened and actually closed off the rail in that place, but the game doesn't model civilian involvement at all, so in game terms it works.

If the allies have to, then the Japs have to. If the allies dont, then why should the Japs?

And where in Gods name have you EVER seen a dev say that was the way it was intended? I was a playtester, and this is the way I played during testing as well. And documented it as such..... It was never changed, therefore the INTENT was as I have been playing. Another thing that I do, that is working as designed which most people think is "gamey" is to change the HQs of bases to allow restricted units to operate from forward bases. This too, is working as designed. So please, spare me the "designers never intended this" speech. Youre wrong.

Edit: Even in Michaels changes, if they hadnt designed it as such, then the HQs for the Jap corps would be white (meaning non-changeable - like the army HQs in Kwantung for example, they are in white instead of yellow) instead of yellow (meaning it IS changeable). If they hadnt designed it that way, it surely would have been easy to fix. Dont even need a code chamge. Thats an editor change. Thats how easy it would be to change if it were intended that way.

My concern with para fragments is not that they can be used to take numerous unoccupied locations, but that they can double the AV of all attacking troops in the hex on the turn they are dropped. To drop [risk] only a fragment of a para unit in those circumstances would not be in the spirit of the game.

True in WitP. Not true in AE. And I have NEVER dropped fragments into a land battle. Every drop Ive made was just the para unit, so even IF true, doesnt apply.

quote:

Re: the buying of divisions, I have not read your AAR so if you say you paid full price, I accept that. But it is your opponent you need to convince. If it was me, I would also want assurances that you do not see Manchuria as part of China, even though it is one contiguous land mass. To do so would make movement of Kwantung army units into China very easy. I only bring that up because I have heard of other players bringing out Kwantung Army units without paying the points. I would want to remove any nagging doubt about this to have full confidence in my opponent.

I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

quote:

If you are sure your actions are within the spirit of the game, please discuss them without the counterattacks. The idea has been placed that some of your actions may not be "fair" and it should be possible to discuss them without attacking the authors. If there are mis-perceptions at work, they are the problem - not the people offering their opinions.

Well apparently you havent bothered to read any of my posts. No, I didnt pay full price for most of the units I released. But by the same token, they werent committed to battle before they would have been released if they had been bought at full price. Most of them sat in reserve in Japan after they were bought out until they were actually needed.

Read my AAR. I stated specifically what units were used where. And I re-stated when and where the units that were released went. Frankly, I didnt need any of them to do what I did. And thats the truth. I could have done it all with the units at hand. For every released unit I used in a battle, I had a non-restricted unit in reserve prepping for the next target. The most I ever used at once (up to the Perth ladings in Oct 42) was 7 divisions, and that was in the initial drive through Malaya plus 2 more in Luzon, and another 2 on their way to Darwin for a total of 11. Japs start the game with 12 released divisions not counting bdes, regts, ect. And they get 4 more Gd divs (in scen 2) I believe before the end of Dec (could be wrong on that, not going to look it up right now).

If the allies have to, then the Japs have to. If the allies dont, then why should the Japs?

And where in Gods name have you EVER seen a dev say that was the way it was intended? I was a playtester, and this is the way I played during testing as well. And documented it as such..... It was never changed, therefore the INTENT was as I have been playing. Another thing that I do, that is working as designed which most people think is "gamey" is to change the HQs of bases to allow restricted units to operate from forward bases. This too, is working as designed. So please, spare me the "designers never intended this" speech. Youre wrong.

Edit: Even in Michaels changes, if they hadnt designed it as such, then the HQs for the Jap corps would be white (meaning non-changeable - like the army HQs in Kwantung for example, they are in white instead of yellow) instead of yellow (meaning it IS changeable). If they hadnt designed it that way, it surely would have been easy to fix. Dont even need a code chamge. Thats an editor change. Thats how easy it would be if it were intended.

So CLEARLY I am using it "as intended".

Blackhorse, The Elf and other developers have refuted claims in various threads with you playing a part.

Your opponent says otherwise but if you both are in agreement that this is the way it should be done then all is fair. Really this should have been brought to his attention before firing the first shot. You understood how other players would react to it by the number of people posting negatively when you previously mentioned these manevuers.

Hopefully going forward you'd give the Allied player clarity on the playing style if a long lasting game is the intention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

Manchuria is traditionally a part of China. I'd have to hear more thoughts on it but instinct tells me it's fair for Chinese to enter Manchuria. However being honest, I may have done the same thing as you here.

Not everyone's play styles mesh and in this case I understand your reasoning for ending the game. Don't beat yourself up about it. You got an education in how HQ control and PP issues can be exploited and your opponent's personality and play style. Good luck finding another opponent.

This is my last word regarding this topic. I find it fairly immature to be arguing in a forum over a "game".

To me the bottom line is this. As a gamer, I find myself involved in numerous games of various types from wargames to online roleplaying games. In each one of these genre you have a small group of people looking at the programming of said game to gain advantages over the others who are playing it. They look for ever bit of "poor programming" to get around things and give them unfair advantages. These "power gamers" don't play the game for the game's sake, they game the game because winning to them is the most important thing, rather then enjoying the experience of the game. You are one of these type of players. I am not. Had I know that it was even possible to buy out units at a significantly less cost (I was not aware of this until someone tipped me off) you can bet your ass I would have made a house rule at the beginning about it. If you will recall from our first conversation regarding a game CV2, I told you the same thing I tell everyone else. If we run across things that seem gamey we can discuss them and reach a compromise on them. I questioned all the boots fairly early in the game and you assured me it was all smoke and mirrors. I didn't know how truthful you were being there. But you were unwilling to compromise on any house rules because you were unwilling to reveal to me how you were doing it.

This goes further, and this is what I don't think you get. If you are willing to game the program to gain an advantage with the PPs, using the mavis how you did with paratroopers, etc. Then it leaves me one big question...what else are you doing to sneak around the intent of the program? What are those unknown things you are up to in addition to what has been discovered.

The thing about playing this game is, by it's nature, you gotta trust that the other fella has some honor. Posting an AAR and asking him not to read it. Trusting that he is obeying the house rules asked for and trusting that when he messes up...and a game that has this much detail but is this massive, one is apt to make mistakes...trusting that they are honest mistakes. The bottom line is I don't trust you as a player. You spend too much time justifying how you are playing rather then taking a step back and recognizing that maybe its possible that you aren't completely correct.

Your refusal to compromise on the small things that I was asking for once our game got going left me pretty puzzled I mean to me its just a game. Once I discovered how you were freeing up all your divisions...I was more then a little put off...I mean if you are willing to do this...you are certainly willing to step over the line in other ways as well. To you its just a game and you get your joy out of rubbing the other's fellows face in it. To me, I enjoy the game and never expect to do well, because I'm not the best player in the world. I have fun making things go boom.

Which is why your crack about me wanting to surrender after you nailed 3 of my carriers was funny to me. I'm currently in another game as the japanese where I have already lost half of KB (standard operating procedure for rob). No surrender has been tendered. It wasn't the 3 carriers I lost to you, it was china, it was everywhere else and I recognized I was out of my league with you as an opponent. I didn't realize at the time "why" I was out of my league...I play a straight game. You don't it is as simple as that.

As I said, you certainly have your own play style and I have never once said you were cheating since we didn't have a lot of house rules when we started. But you sure as hell are gaming the program and that hardly makes for a fun game for anyone does it? Well except for you, which is rather the point isn't it.

Blackhorse, The Elf and other developers have refuted claims in various threads with you playing a part.

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

Manchuria is traditionally a part of China. I'd have to hear more thoughts on it but instinct tells me it's fair for Chinese to enter Manchuria. However being honest, I may have done the same thing as you here.

I suppose Vietnam is then also? Because his 31 corps went in there. Also a perma restricted unit. The same type as you would have us believe the Jap army HQs were intended to be.

This is my last word regarding this topic. I find it fairly immature to be arguing in a forum over a "game".

To me the bottom line is this. As a gamer, I find myself involved in numerous games of various types from wargames to online roleplaying games. In each one of these genre you have a small group of people looking at the programming of said game to gain advantages over the others who are playing it. They look for ever bit of "poor programming" to get around things and give them unfair advantages. These "power gamers" don't play the game for the game's sake, they game the game because winning to them is the most important thing, rather then enjoying the experience of the game. You are one of these type of players. I am not. Had I know that it was even possible to buy out units at a significantly less cost (I was not aware of this until someone tipped me off) you can bet your ass I would have made a house rule at the beginning about it. If you will recall from our first conversation regarding a game CV2, I told you the same thing I tell everyone else. If we run across things that seem gamey we can discuss them and reach a compromise on them. I questioned all the boots fairly early in the game and you assured me it was all smoke and mirrors. I didn't know how truthful you were being there. But you were unwilling to compromise on any house rules because you were unwilling to reveal to me how you were doing it.

This goes further, and this is what I don't think you get. If you are willing to game the program to gain an advantage with the PPs, using the mavis how you did with paratroopers, etc. Then it leaves me one big question...what else are you doing to sneak around the intent of the program? What are those unknown things you are up to in addition to what has been discovered.

The thing about playing this game is, by it's nature, you gotta trust that the other fella has some honor. Posting an AAR and asking him not to read it. Trusting that he is obeying the house rules asked for and trusting that when he messes up...and a game that has this much detail but is this massive, one is apt to make mistakes...trusting that they are honest mistakes. The bottom line is I don't trust you as a player. You spend too much time justifying how you are playing rather then taking a step back and recognizing that maybe its possible that you aren't completely correct.

Your refusal to compromise on the small things that I was asking for once our game got going left me pretty puzzled I mean to me its just a game. Once I discovered how you were freeing up all your divisions...I was more then a little put off...I mean if you are willing to do this...you are certainly willing to step over the line in other ways as well. To you its just a game and you get your joy out of rubbing the other's fellows face in it. To me, I enjoy the game and never expect to do well, because I'm not the best player in the world. I have fun making things go boom.

Which is why your crack about me wanting to surrender after you nailed 3 of my carriers was funny to me. I'm currently in another game as the japanese where I have already lost half of KB (standard operating procedure for rob). No surrender has been tendered. It wasn't the 3 carriers I lost to you, it was china, it was everywhere else and I recognized I was out of my league with you as an opponent. I didn't realize at the time "why" I was out of my league...I play a straight game. You don't it is as simple as that.

As I said, you certainly have your own play style and I have never once said you were cheating since we didn't have a lot of house rules when we started. But you sure as hell are gaming the program and that hardly makes for a fun game for anyone does it? Well except for you, which is rather the point isn't it.

Again, you havent addressed THIS:

quote:

quote:

What commands are you releasing your units to?

I noticed you didnt answer THIS question.

Why not?

I used the Mavis L - It is a transport. If you dont understand that, maybe its a flaw with YOU? Why is it even in the game if it isnt INTENDED to be used as a transport?

I didnt read your AAR until after your last letter. My God. If I had been reading your AAR, you think I would have let your Brit carriers live and attack at will? But I MUST be cheating, right?

You didnt surrender in the other game because you werent getting your ass handed to you so easily Im guessing.

You made serveral mistakes. You shock attack me at Clark Field and wonder why Bataan fell early. Gee, I wonder...

You keep your subs on station under an air umbrella and wonder why they arent attacking anything. Gee I wonder...

You stand in clear terrain in China, watch me encircle you and I take down scores of units time and time again. Even AFTER I told you that the Chinese cant defend in clear terrain and wonder why. Gee I wonder...

Good God, you have played how long and havent figured this stuff out yet? It MUST be me cheating, because apparently you are incapable of making mistakes. So I have to be sending extra units into China. Good God.

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.

Here's an interesting post by

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.

Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.